As a long-time contributor and administrator I am painfully aware how we are screwing up the experience for new editors. This is ironically possibly due to our culture of self-empowerment: we give too little feedback for moderately experienced Wikipedians who decide to lay down the law for new Wikipedians. We let them discourage newcomers, because probably mean well in their endevour to keep Wikipedia clean, and the line between the right thing and not the right thing in practice is often blurry. Much of this problem comes from relatively new Wikipedians, who are seen by complete newcomers as authority figures because they act as such, without the new editor realising that there really are no authority figures ( if anyone ever uses the phrase 'will report you to the admins' you know they are full off it, and have no clue how Wikipedia works). While our editing model and attitude certainly needs improvement, the visual editor is at least a step in the right direction. Fixing the problem posed by the arcane invocations that make up MediaWiki WikiText and templates by using a visual editor is a good thing, and shouldn't be blocked because we have behavioural problems within our community.

And then you have GCC, Make and an outdated version of EGlibC. I'll admit that is easier than on windows, but getting the same stuff on windows isn't exactly involved either. Comparing that to an MSDN subscription is - regardless what you think of it's price - quite silly.

Aha, but then you are assuming the .NET runtime actually executes the IL, and doesn't wrap it in an abstraction layer of evil, webcam spying, password stealing, voting machine hacking and bitcoin mining. You sheeple are so gullible.

For very slight values of radioactive. It's half-life time is ~10^20 years. I think I can we can have enough error correction bits to deal with that.

What? Why is he hitting himself?

Not quite, but close enough

yes

That's the thing: They can just give it to him. No contract required. Just direct debit.

The longer I think about it, the likelier I find it that time is in fact an emerging statistical behaviour equal to the entropy arrow of time. That would allow for local statistical reversal of time, and balances out any difficulties of cause and effect, where the difference between cause and effect is defined as effect having a higher entropy than cause. I have a nagging feeling a lot of things may be involved in this (even P ?= NP can maybe seen as a form of this, where an unsolved problem describes a system with the same energy as a solved problem, but the unsolved problem has higher entropy). Unfortunately, I lack the rigor to properly work something out. Feel free to downvote based on crackpottery.

Java on the browser very much corresponds to the cliche of the horribly misshapen monster moaning "please... kill me". Java - or at least the JVM - outside the browser seems to be doing fine. Scala, Clojure and Groovy are thriving, and starting to get mature, Kotlin is hot. Java frameworks are doing really well in webframework performance. The JVM might be in better shape than ever at the moment.

That's assuming that java will not have two critical patch updates on the same day. On the one hand, that sounds reasonable. On the other...

Don't fix it. Once it starts causing problems and you see no upside in maintaining, remove it. Easy as that.

Of course, if you'd referenced the citation directly instead of referencing Wikipedia which references the citation, it would have been clear from the outset where the information came from

It isn't, and that kind of behavior should be punishable, I don't think many people disagree with that. Saying something like "Did you think there was a bomb in there or something" to the TSA is not actually the equivalent of yelling "bomb" though.

Don't you recognise that it is a problem you can't make these kind of jokes at an airport or at the TSA? Yes, it's probably a bad idea to do this. But it is ridiculous that it is a bad idea.

Oh, it must be true then.